In a landmark ruling on Friday, the High Court said the decision to proscribe the group Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was ‘disproportionate’
Yvette Cooper has defended her decision to ban Palestine Action under terror legislation despite the move being ruled unlawful.
In a landmark ruling on Friday, the High Court said the decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 was “disproportionate”. The ban came into force last summer, making it a criminal offence to support Palestine Action – punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Ms Cooper, who was Home Secretary when the ban was brought in, told Sky News today that the organisation was “not a normal protest group” – and said her successor Shabana Mahmood planned to appeal to judgement.
The top minister was confronted during a BBC interview with a video message from retired priest Sue Parfitt, 83, who was arrested under the terrorism act for attending a rally in support of Palestine Action last summer.
READ MORE: Palestine Action wins High Court challenge against terror group banREAD MORE: Minister challenged over pro-Palestine hunger strikers as medic warns they might die
She told the BBC: “I do not consider myself a terrorist. It is quite ludicrous to consider that I am. I’m an Anglican priest and I have worked for peace and justice all my life.
“This is not what terrorism is. We know what terrorism is. It is people like al Qaeda and people who have done terrible acts against communities.”
Asked if she had got the decision wrong, Ms Cooper said: “Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, has looked at this and been very clear she disagrees with the judgment and is appealing against it. So look, I’m not going to cut across that, but let me just say this, that the advice that I had, and I suspect the advice that Shabana will have had as well, was very clearly about the risks around violence, around violent threats and around public safety.
“When you’re faced with that advice as a Home Secretary, you have to take it immensely seriously. We had strong advice around proscription and those powers being needed in order to make sure that we could deal with violent threats. And also, this was obviously passed through Parliament as well.
She added: “There is a real difference between the freedom of protest, which is immensely important, including the freedom to protest around Palestine, which huge numbers of people have done and continue to do.
The UK Government has recognized the state of Palestine, those protest rights are really important. And instead, the activities of a small group that the court themselves have said was involved in the promotion of violence that in the end, as a Home Secretary, you have to take seriously.”
“That will go to appeal, there will be the opportunity for the court to look at that again. But I think any responsible Home Secretary takes immensely seriously advice that you get around public safety.”
In a summary of the High Court’s decision on Friday, Dame Victoria said the court had considered the proscription of the group “disproportionate”. She added: “A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act.
“For these, and for Palestine Action’s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
Ms Mahmood said she was “disappointed” by the court’s ruling – and made clear the government will appeal.